Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The point you’re missing - or glossing over - is that the dates weren’t set in stone. They were subject to conditions on the ground. Conditions to which Obama paid no heed in his rush to pull stumps.[/quote]

What? Cite this in the Status of Forces Agreement. I linked it a few pages back.

And let’s say you’re right. That adds a nuance, but it doesn’t change a thing about my point here.

But anyway, please cite the relevant portion of the SOFA.[/quote]

The agreement does state that “all United States forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory” by the end of 2011. The barely disguised intent, however, is that the terms will be renegotiated beforehand to sanction an enduring American presence. The associated “Strategic Framework Agreement,” which was signed between the Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on November 28, commits both parties to a “long term relationship in economic, diplomatic, cultural and security fields”.

In three years time, the Iraqi security forces will still be incapable of conducting operations against significant insurgent activity without American support, let alone defending Iraq’s borders against potential regional rivals…

John Nagl, a retired US officer who assisted General David Petraeus draft the counter-insurgency plan applied in Iraq, told the Washington Post last month: “Everyone knows the Iraqi security forces are not going to be self-sufficient by 2011. There are going to be Americans helping Iraqis keep their F-16s in the air for at least a decade.” The Iraqi ministry of defence has stated that the earliest it will have an “independent” air force is 2020.

Moreover, in dealing with “external or internal threats,” the Strategic Framework sanctions the US to use “diplomatic, economic or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat”.

My apologies for the source.[/quote]

Further:

"SOFAs are peacetime documents and therefore do not address the
rules of war, the Law of Armed Conflict, or the Law of the Sea. In the event of armed conflict
between parties to a SOFA, and because the agreement is a contract between the parties and may
be canceled at the will of either, the terms of the agreement would no longer be applicable. "

and:

“Even though the term of the agreement is three years,
and either party may cancel the agreement with one-year notice, both countries retain the right to
remove U.S. forces independent of the agreement”[/quote]

The key component being “In the event of armed conflict
*BETWEEN parties to a SOFA…”

If the US had violated its SOFA treaty obligations, Iraq would have had legal and moral grounds to withdraw from a plethora of diplomatic and economic agreements with the United States. Further, such a gross breach of diplomatic norms and international law would have widely damaged US foreign relations.

222

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

"SOFAs are peacetime documents and therefore do not address the
rules of war, the Law of Armed Conflict, or the Law of the Sea. In the event of armed conflict
between parties to a SOFA, and because the agreement is a contract between the parties and may
be canceled at the will of either, the terms of the agreement would no longer be applicable. "[/quote]

Not remotely relevant. What this is saying is that if the U.S. were to go to war with Iraq, the SOFA would dissolve. Which is painfully obvious.

[quote]
“Even though the term of the agreement is three years,
and either party may cancel the agreement with one-year notice, both countries retain the right to
remove U.S. forces independent of the agreement”[/quote]

And, again, why did the U.S. not want to cancel an agreement without a new one in place? Why would a president want to not, under any circumstances, allow the SOFA to dissolve?[/quote]

And if you did not read it, then you don’t know that obama takes full credit for removing the troops from Iraq, not as an adherence to any SOFA’s but as a campaign promise kept. Further he details that he planned and over saw the withdrawal. Read it. It’s not long, there is no reason not to read it. It’s not rhetoric. It’s a complete and total ownership of the withdrawal of all military personnel.

It was obama’s baby, it was his decision his choice. There is no getting around it.

The SOFA protects, primarily the military personnel from detention and prosecution from the host country. You wouldn’t want to dissolve it in order to protect the troops. The withdrawal time line was not binding, at all. The report to congress simply states that if the withdrawal timeline cannot be met, another will have to be drawn up. They can be drawn up and they can be dissolved. They are not carved in stone. Further they are peace time documents, not war time documents.

223

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
The article is from '05, but I thought the comparison’s between post war Iraq and post war Japan were interesting.

Comparisons of Iraq to post-war Japan fail, historian asserts
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/rebuilding-iraq-0316[/quote]

History has indeed already played out these scenarios. We repeat the mistakes at our own peril.

224

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
The article is from '05, but I thought the comparison’s between post war Iraq and post war Japan were interesting.

Comparisons of Iraq to post-war Japan fail, historian asserts
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/rebuilding-iraq-0316[/quote]

History has indeed already played out these scenarios. We repeat the mistakes at our own peril.[/quote]

What history is that? You know what, you’re right Pat. We didn’t give the troops enough time to fix Iraq. Pacifying American forces should be forward deployed in Iraq for at least the same amount of time that they have been in Europe, Japan, and Korea.

225

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Do 275 marines sent to safeguard our embassy constitute as “boots on the ground”? If not, what type of soldiers does?[/quote]

Offensive infantry or special operations forces. Pretty simple. [/quote]

So I guess the 100 special ops guys he’s sending now as “advisors” qualify.
[/quote]

Army Special Forces, AKA Green Berets. Not if they are conducting Foreign Internal Defense (FID), which they are almost assuredly being limited to. A company sized light infantry element is not going to be conducting offensive operations in the present security environment of Iraq.

Further, the boots of the CIA Special Activities Division’s covert operations officers and paramilitary operatives have assuredly remained on the ground in Iraq since the withdraw of American combat forces.[/quote]

Looks like its 300 advisors, bringing total American… “Personnel” to nearly 600.

I’m just worried about mission creep. Many a war started this way. Imagine if the 600 get captured and/or killed. I bet more forces are sent in, and soon we have a mess.

226

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

"SOFAs are peacetime documents and therefore do not address the
rules of war, the Law of Armed Conflict, or the Law of the Sea. In the event of armed conflict
between parties to a SOFA, and because the agreement is a contract between the parties and may
be canceled at the will of either, the terms of the agreement would no longer be applicable. "[/quote]

Not remotely relevant. What this is saying is that if the U.S. were to go to war with Iraq, the SOFA would dissolve. Which is painfully obvious.

[quote]
“Even though the term of the agreement is three years,
and either party may cancel the agreement with one-year notice, both countries retain the right to
remove U.S. forces independent of the agreement”[/quote]

And, again, why did the U.S. not want to cancel an agreement without a new one in place? Why would a president want to not, under any circumstances, allow the SOFA to dissolve?[/quote]

And if you did not read it, then you don’t know that obama takes full credit for removing the troops from Iraq, not as an adherence to any SOFA’s but as a campaign promise kept. Further he details that he planned and over saw the withdrawal. Read it. It’s not long, there is no reason not to read it. It’s not rhetoric. It’s a complete and total ownership of the withdrawal of all military personnel. [/quote]

I did read it. I said “no” as a general denial of your argument. But I can see that this was ambiguous of me, and that it seemed like I was saying I didn’t read it.

Again–none of this matters. If Obama takes credit for inventing blowjobs, does that make it so? No. This line of argument has failed you and I have addressed it in full. When Obama took credit for the withdrawal, he was taking credit for something that had been negotiated, designed, and signed before he had an ounce of executive power in American government. This is not arguable. This is not controversial. There is nothing more to add with regard to whether or not Obama blew his own horn on the Iraq draw-down. You are relying on the political rhetoric of a politician as he takes credit for something that was designed and established before he came to office; I am relying on signed and dated documentary evidence. Your only play is to prove that the SOFA was not actually signed on the date it says it was signed on. Barring that, this line of discussion should not continue.

[quote]

The SOFA protects, primarily the military personnel from detention and prosecution from the host country.[/quote]

The SOFA does a bunch of things. Each article and section has a purpose. It does exactly what it does.

[quote]
You wouldn’t want to dissolve it in order to protect the troops.[/quote]

Correct. And thus this…

…is nonsense. Tell me what happens to the SOFA if Article 24 Section 1 is violated.

[quote]
The report to congress simply states that if the withdrawal timeline cannot be met, another will have to be drawn up.[/quote]

And both Bush and Obama tried to draw up a different one. Neither could. Because of Iraqi politics.

I get the impression that you haven’t actually been following this. That you’re just learning your way through it now.

227

[quote]Bismark wrote:

If the US had violated its SOFA treaty obligations, Iraq would have had legal and moral grounds to withdraw from a plethora of diplomatic and economic agreements with the United States. Further, such a gross breach of diplomatic norms and international law would have widely damaged US foreign relations. [/quote]

Ding ding ding. Thank you.

Plus, U.S. soldiers would have begun seeing their day in Iraqi courts.

This is what I mean when I say that I try to stay away from IR discussion hereabouts. You find yourself rehashing the most basic points about diplomacy.

228

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Do 275 marines sent to safeguard our embassy constitute as “boots on the ground”? If not, what type of soldiers does?[/quote]

Offensive infantry or special operations forces. Pretty simple. [/quote]

So I guess the 100 special ops guys he’s sending now as “advisors” qualify.
[/quote]

Army Special Forces, AKA Green Berets. Not if they are conducting Foreign Internal Defense (FID), which they are almost assuredly being limited to. A company sized light infantry element is not going to be conducting offensive operations in the present security environment of Iraq.

Further, the boots of the CIA Special Activities Division’s covert operations officers and paramilitary operatives have assuredly remained on the ground in Iraq since the withdraw of American combat forces.[/quote]

Looks like its 300 advisors, bringing total American… “Personnel” to nearly 600.

I’m just worried about mission creep. Many a war started this way. Imagine if the 600 get captured and/or killed. I bet more forces are sent in, and soon we have a mess.
[/quote]

Still, barely a battalion sized light infantry element that will be conducting FID. The inevitable political shitstorm will likely prevent Special Forces from conducting direct action operations with Iraqi forces.

I disagree. Diplomatic security- check. FID- check. The political realities will likely constrain any ambitions of mission creep. The US should enlist the aid of the Kurdish Peshmerga, providing them with advanced US weapons and logistical and intelligence support. If its viable, they should also provide close air support.

229

[quote]Bismark wrote:
If the US had violated its SOFA treaty obligations, Iraq would have had legal and moral grounds to withdraw from a plethora of diplomatic and economic agreements with the United States. Further, such a gross breach of diplomatic norms and international law would have widely damaged US foreign relations. [/quote]

…and would have demonstrated the continuation of the misguided thinking that created the mess in the first place. Righteous people honor their agreements.

230

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I advocate a Kurdish state in Iran, Syria and Iraq. Turkey would not be happy about losing part of their country and having their borders redrawn. Neither would Iran, Iraq or Syria but in those cases it doesn’t matter.
[/quote]

And how do you propose to make this happen? The USA redraws borders on a map and tells the rest of the world to follow suit? You seem intelligent enough to know that sovereign nations aren’t going to will away valuable and strategic territory for the hell of it. I don’t understand why you keep harping on this as a panacea as it’s complete fantasy.

231

One Marine’s perspective on why we shouldn’t be doubling down on failed policies.

I served in Iraq, we shouldn’t go back.

232

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I advocate a Kurdish state in Iran, Syria and Iraq. Turkey would not be happy about losing part of their country and having their borders redrawn. Neither would Iran, Iraq or Syria but in those cases it doesn’t matter.
[/quote]

And how do you propose to make this happen? The USA redraws borders on a map and tells the rest of the world to follow suit? You seem intelligent enough to know that sovereign nations aren’t going to will away valuable and strategic territory for the hell of it. I don’t understand why you keep harping on this as a panacea as it’s complete fantasy.[/quote]

Self determination is a keystone of democracy. What if this was limited to the Iraqi KRG?

233

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The precipitous withdrawal was Bush’s response to massive pressure from defeatists whose champion was Barack Obama…[/quote]

Oh, I see. The current president is to blame for the previous president’s withdrawal of troops from the country which the selfsame previous president went to war with.

So Obama’s name is signed on the SOFA, then?

I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility.

He whose name appears above the dotted line–he’s the guy who withdrew the troops. All the rest is drivel.

[/quote]

No, no, no. It happened on Barack Obama’s watch, therefore it’s his responsibility.

Just like Gerald Ford was responsible for the Fall of Saigon, and Harry Truman singlehandedly won the Second World War.[/quote]

Don’t forget the crash that happened while Bush was in office.

But it was Clinton who signed the Gramm-Leachy-Bliley Act that dismantled all the banking regulations.

If we are playing this timeline game, the crash was Democrat made. [/quote]

The crash was made because of greedy evil fucks like Joseph Gregory and also the collective failure of the American people too eager for easy money.

But I am with you on playing the blame game. Any logical person can see neither democrats nor republicans really care about the American people. Hell a lot prominent democrats are nothing more than closeted neocons with an outward PC attitude that lemmings take for progressiveness. It’s unbelievable how so many liberals think republicans are warmongers (which many clearly are), but completely forget how badly prominent democrats wanted to invade Iraq. Not to mention supposed liberal rags like the WaPo begging to go to war in Iraq back in 2002-2003. I’m not sure another paper loves war more than the WaPo. The overwhelming majority of politicians and editorial boards are full of shit and while that may seem obvious it appears many people forget this when they formulate their opinions and worldview. In fact, many people idolize politicians. It’s crazy.

In terms of what’s going in Iraq, the amount of bullshit I’ve read from major papers (WSJ, WaPo, etc) and quotes from politicians is mind boggling. How we continue to be the strongest country on the planet with the buffoons running this country in combination with a gullible and increasingly lazy populace makes you wonder what the hell is going on in the rest of the world. I’m sure China knows this.

234

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I advocate a Kurdish state in Iran, Syria and Iraq. Turkey would not be happy about losing part of their country and having their borders redrawn. Neither would Iran, Iraq or Syria but in those cases it doesn’t matter.
[/quote]

And how do you propose to make this happen? The USA redraws borders on a map and tells the rest of the world to follow suit? You seem intelligent enough to know that sovereign nations aren’t going to will away valuable and strategic territory for the hell of it. I don’t understand why you keep harping on this as a panacea as it’s complete fantasy.[/quote]

Self determination is a keystone of democracy. What if this was limited to the Iraqi KRG?[/quote]

That’s a much different scenario than what sexmachine was laying out.

Your point that self determination is a keystone of democracy cannot be denied. The Kurds are a martial people and have their own ethnic identity in the mideast. If they were able to do so, more power to them. They would be unified relative to countries like Iraq or Syria which have a divided populace so in that sense democracy could work. My caveat is I don’t even know how the Kurds govern themselves at the moment.

I don’t know off the top of my head how valuable Kurdish land is in Iraq so can’t guess how hard Iraq would fight for that land.

235

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

I don’t give a shit about Sunni vs. Shiites, but this will end badly and result in a country that trains suicide bombers, etc, that end up in Western countries.

[/quote]

Can you really see the Shi’ite cities in the South surrendering to ISIS? Isn’t it more likely that this is the prelude to a bloody civil war as opposed to the country “falling” to ISIS as reported in the media?[/quote]

There’s Iranian revolutionary guards,& the head of the quds forces in Iraq backing up the Shia, & Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani,calling for Jihad against Isis.

How crazy are we? We’ve been in a covert war with Iran for 35 years. These guys are the ones who held our people hostage in the 70’s, started the whole damn thing, supported the infant Hezbollah in Lebanon and killed our Marines.

And Obama’s gonna help them stop Isis!!! Is he insane? Isis is like the Iraqi Taliban, in my opinion, if they are at war with Iran they should be our ally…since they are also at war with Assad in Syria and also Hezbollah, 2 more of our enemies. This could be the start of Gulf War II and it could possibly end this time with the destruction of the Iranian terror regime.

I think we should keep our noses out of this and let the Muslims sort it out. Just my 2 cents.[/quote]

Wow, what an absurd position to take. Yea, we should be allies with ISIS to spite Iran. You really got this geopolitics stuff figured out. You’re not even congruent in your argument so I’m not sure what your position is.

Take it from the guy who lives in Israel and is much more familiar with middle eastern matters than yourself that ISIS having a strong hold in the region is not a good development for the western world. ISIS is not at war with Iran, it’s at war with Iraq. If you had even a modicum of knowledge about the middle east and recent history, you would recognize the incredible ignorance of thinking ISIS will be the end of the Iranian regime. A group of thousands without borders versus a nation of 90 million ultra-nationalistic people who have faced far worse than what ISIS is doing in Iraq.

Militant jihadists having a stronghold in a lawless country is what lead to 9/11. And you support that? I’m amused that you missed that entirely, especially since you support ISIS because it’s an “Iraqi Taliban” from your point of view. The Taliban is a huge reason 9/11 happened.

Tell me where Obama said he was going to help Iran in fighting ISIS? Or did you just make that up because someone on the radio said it was so? All administrations since the hostage crisis has shared/received communication with Iran and other unfriendly countries at one point or another when shared interests merited that action. That includes Reagan and W. That is much different than military cooperation or official dialogue.

236

[quote]theuofh wrote:
The last couple article I’ve read, albeit of dubious credibility, state that the new goal is to split Iraq into 3 separate entities: a kurdish, shiia, and sunni.

Given their millenia old differences, I don’t think anyboy thinks a unified government will work, especially with the Gulf States all rooting for their own personal teams. Forcing Maliki in favor of a unified government out won’t really do anything, except create a bigger power vacuum, and instead of the different insurgencies/factions shooting each other in the streets, they will be shooting each other in government offices. Although, you still have the EU and their influence in the UN trying to make the model work for economic reasons which time will tell, I don’t think you are dealing with the same situation in the Middle East.

I haven’t researched it much, but considering the resources spent “liberating” Iraq, the US and it’s oil industry didn’t benefit much from the Iraqi resources. Re-engineering the country will likely null and void those contracts, given the US a second shot, although this is me speculating as I’m not really all that informed of how all this played out.
[/quote]

In an ideal world the country would be split into three so that the different groups can all govern themselves to their liking. The problem is ISIS is a jihadist movement. ISIS does not represent the average Iraqi Sunni or their interests, it represents terrorism and a sharia law state in the same vein as the Taliban (e.g.; girls get burned for learning how to read). If there were some way for the peacefully split the country into three and have ISIS eliminated we’d have a more stable middle east. History and recent history show it’s unlikely democracy is going to unify all of the disparate Iraqi people.

There are a lot of problems with this ideal scenario, however. One is ISIS should not be viewed as the Sunni side and ISIS having a stronghold would be bad for the world. So any split would have to be in combination with ensuring that the Sunni slice would not be overrun by ISIS. The second problem is that Iraq is a country of great natural resources. That fact complicates splitting the country up in three ways. It might make it impossible.

The reality is there isn’t a person in the world that knows how to properly deal with this situation because there is no perfect solution. That time has long passed. I have the opinion that Iraq can’t work as it currently stands because there is clearly a lack of shared identity between the three separate groups. As far as solving that, I’m not so delusional to think I have the answer.

237

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
The reality is there isn’t a person in the world that knows how to properly deal with this situation because there is no perfect solution. That time has long passed. I have the opinion that Iraq can’t work as it currently stands because there is clearly a lack of shared identity between the three separate groups. As far as solving that, I’m not so delusional to think I have the answer.[/quote]

Yup. Its a real clusterfuck. There are zero good solutions that I can see going forward.

238

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I advocate a Kurdish state in Iran, Syria and Iraq. Turkey would not be happy about losing part of their country and having their borders redrawn. Neither would Iran, Iraq or Syria but in those cases it doesn’t matter.
[/quote]

And how do you propose to make this happen? The USA redraws borders on a map and tells the rest of the world to follow suit? You seem intelligent enough to know that sovereign nations aren’t going to will away valuable and strategic territory for the hell of it. I don’t understand why you keep harping on this as a panacea as it’s complete fantasy.[/quote]

Self determination is a keystone of democracy. What if this was limited to the Iraqi KRG?[/quote]

That’s a much different scenario than what sexmachine was laying out.

Your point that self determination is a keystone of democracy cannot be denied. The Kurds are a martial people and have their own ethnic identity in the mideast. If they were able to do so, more power to them. They would be unified relative to countries like Iraq or Syria which have a divided populace so in that sense democracy could work. My caveat is I don’t even know how the Kurds govern themselves at the moment.

I don’t know off the top of my head how valuable Kurdish land is in Iraq so can’t guess how hard Iraq would fight for that land. [/quote]

Unicameral parliament. Lots of oil. And comparable beards to my avatar.

239

[quote]BPCorso wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I advocate a Kurdish state in Iran, Syria and Iraq. Turkey would not be happy about losing part of their country and having their borders redrawn. Neither would Iran, Iraq or Syria but in those cases it doesn’t matter.
[/quote]

And how do you propose to make this happen? The USA redraws borders on a map and tells the rest of the world to follow suit? You seem intelligent enough to know that sovereign nations aren’t going to will away valuable and strategic territory for the hell of it. I don’t understand why you keep harping on this as a panacea as it’s complete fantasy.[/quote]

It’s a point I have already acknowledged and addressed. It’s why I left Turkish territory out of a proposed Kurdistan. But you may have noticed that we are already at war with Syria and to a certain extent Iran, and that the Kurds in Iraq are already semi-autonomous and already occupying Kirkuk. I realise it’s a pretty audacious proposition fraught with difficulties but it seems to me to be a sound strategy.

240

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

Pacification is easier said then done, especially without the emperor around keeping people in line and no one as yet has been identified who can clearly fill the role. If there was a good candidate, he would probably already be in office. [/quote]

Any candidate for “emperor” would not be on any ballot, unless it is a ballot for his “re-election” to legitimise his rule once he has seized it. And just because no strongman has seized power yet doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Here is a likely candidate for the dubiously coveted position of Caliph: Ibrahim Izzat al-Douri.

King of Clubs in the “Deck of 55” and Saddam Hussein’s right-hand man in the 1968 coup, Douri is currently the head of the outlaw Ba’ath party, and also commander of the Naqshbandi Army (“Chairman of the Supreme Command for Jihad and Liberation”), which is closely tied to ISIS.

Not saying he definitely wants the job, but what’s really to prevent him from taking it if ISIS takes Baghdad?

[/quote]

This is the problem and I agree.

I was referring to the US as the emperor being the only party strong enough to keep all the different factions in line. Maliki is currently requesting air support and it hasn’t yet dawned on him that his term is officially over, despite whatever facade of an election or constitutional system put him in his position. This newly built nation is still reliant on US support and it is about to crumble.

If there was a moderate candidate who could bridge these ancient old divisions, he would already be in office. The problem is there isn’t one and there will never will be. Sure there’s a small chance that something can work out, but there’s not enough there to base a strategy off to try and fix this mess.

So same old story, same old power vacuum, this time with many more players because all the surrounding countries have a dog in the hunt.

I don’t have a solution either and if the reason we were there was really for “national security” concerns regarding extremists getting there hands on WMDs (bugs, gas, nukes) based off the 9/11, the situation is as close to fucked up as it gets, as these threats are about 1000% more likely now and I really hope our A-team is working on non-proliferation overtime.